对到达急诊科的病人进行休克诊断的echoSHOCK方案的验证。

IF 1.1 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Takshak Shankar, Nidhi Kaeley, Parvathy Sasidharan, Archana Bairwa, M S Salva Ameena, Sreejith Jayachandran, Jewel Rani Jose, Jitendra Kumar Yadav
{"title":"对到达急诊科的病人进行休克诊断的echoSHOCK方案的验证。","authors":"Takshak Shankar, Nidhi Kaeley, Parvathy Sasidharan, Archana Bairwa, M S Salva Ameena, Sreejith Jayachandran, Jewel Rani Jose, Jitendra Kumar Yadav","doi":"10.4103/tjem.tjem_121_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Nontraumatic undifferentiated shock is difficult to manage in the emergency department due to unclear causes, lack of history, and rapid patient deterioration. Timely and appropriate resuscitation is crucial, but both inadequate and excessive resuscitation increase mortality risks. Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) offers a timely and noninvasive cardiac assessment. The echoSHOCK protocol is derived from FoCUS and improves the ability to identify the etiology of shock in patients at the emergency department. This study's primary objective was to validate the echoSHOCK protocol for diagnosing the cause of shock in patients arriving at the emergency department. This study's secondary objective was to determine the prevalence of different etiologies of shock in patients arriving at the emergency department.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients presenting to the emergency department in shock were included in the study after informed consent was obtained. The shock was defined as a systolic blood pressure of <90 mmHg or a mean arterial pressure of <65 mmHg with signs of poor tissue perfusion. Each patient underwent a detailed history, physical examination, and standard investigations. Clinicians reported a presumed etiology and management plan with a confidence level (0-10). The echoSHOCK protocol was then executed and its results were recorded with the respective confidence levels. The protocol used a phased array probe in B-mode solely and assessed left ventricle function, compressive pericardial effusion, right ventricular dilatation, interventricular septum flattening, and indicators of hypovolemia. The time taken to perform the protocol and the difficulty level were noted. An expert panel followed the patient till hospital discharge and provided the final diagnosis and intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study enrolled 223 patients with a mean age of 49.12 years. The echoSHOCK protocol showed a 94.2% agreement with expert panel diagnoses on the cause of shock and proposed interventions, with a statistically significant near-perfect agreement (Cohen's Kappa -0.896, <i>P</i> < 0.001 and 0.897, <i>P</i> < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, the agreement between the clinical assessment, routine workup, and expert panel diagnoses was 46.2% on the cause of shock and 45.7% on the proposed interventions, respectively. The echoSHOCK protocol's median feasibility score was 7 (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-8), and its median performance time was 7 min (IQR: 6-10). Confidence in diagnoses was significantly higher with echoSHOCK (mean: 7.14) than with clinical examination (mean: 4.47) (Wilcoxon Test: <i>P</i> <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The echoSHOCK protocol rapidly identifies shock etiology in patients at the emergency department. This aids in rapid resuscitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":46536,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 2","pages":"100-106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12002151/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of the echoSHOCK protocol for diagnosing the cause of shock in patients arriving at the emergency department.\",\"authors\":\"Takshak Shankar, Nidhi Kaeley, Parvathy Sasidharan, Archana Bairwa, M S Salva Ameena, Sreejith Jayachandran, Jewel Rani Jose, Jitendra Kumar Yadav\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/tjem.tjem_121_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Nontraumatic undifferentiated shock is difficult to manage in the emergency department due to unclear causes, lack of history, and rapid patient deterioration. Timely and appropriate resuscitation is crucial, but both inadequate and excessive resuscitation increase mortality risks. Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) offers a timely and noninvasive cardiac assessment. The echoSHOCK protocol is derived from FoCUS and improves the ability to identify the etiology of shock in patients at the emergency department. This study's primary objective was to validate the echoSHOCK protocol for diagnosing the cause of shock in patients arriving at the emergency department. This study's secondary objective was to determine the prevalence of different etiologies of shock in patients arriving at the emergency department.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients presenting to the emergency department in shock were included in the study after informed consent was obtained. The shock was defined as a systolic blood pressure of <90 mmHg or a mean arterial pressure of <65 mmHg with signs of poor tissue perfusion. Each patient underwent a detailed history, physical examination, and standard investigations. Clinicians reported a presumed etiology and management plan with a confidence level (0-10). The echoSHOCK protocol was then executed and its results were recorded with the respective confidence levels. The protocol used a phased array probe in B-mode solely and assessed left ventricle function, compressive pericardial effusion, right ventricular dilatation, interventricular septum flattening, and indicators of hypovolemia. The time taken to perform the protocol and the difficulty level were noted. An expert panel followed the patient till hospital discharge and provided the final diagnosis and intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study enrolled 223 patients with a mean age of 49.12 years. The echoSHOCK protocol showed a 94.2% agreement with expert panel diagnoses on the cause of shock and proposed interventions, with a statistically significant near-perfect agreement (Cohen's Kappa -0.896, <i>P</i> < 0.001 and 0.897, <i>P</i> < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, the agreement between the clinical assessment, routine workup, and expert panel diagnoses was 46.2% on the cause of shock and 45.7% on the proposed interventions, respectively. The echoSHOCK protocol's median feasibility score was 7 (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-8), and its median performance time was 7 min (IQR: 6-10). Confidence in diagnoses was significantly higher with echoSHOCK (mean: 7.14) than with clinical examination (mean: 4.47) (Wilcoxon Test: <i>P</i> <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The echoSHOCK protocol rapidly identifies shock etiology in patients at the emergency department. This aids in rapid resuscitation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"100-106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12002151/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjem.tjem_121_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjem.tjem_121_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:非外伤性未分化性休克由于病因不明、缺乏病史和患者病情迅速恶化,在急诊科很难处理。及时和适当的复苏至关重要,但复苏不足和过度都会增加死亡风险。聚焦心脏超声(FoCUS)提供了一个及时和无创的心脏评估。echoSHOCK方案源自FoCUS,提高了在急诊科识别患者休克病因的能力。本研究的主要目的是验证echoSHOCK方案对到达急诊科的患者的休克原因的诊断。本研究的次要目的是确定急诊患者中不同病因的休克发生率。方法:在获得知情同意后,将在急诊科就诊的成年休克患者纳入研究。休克被定义为收缩压。结果:研究纳入223例患者,平均年龄49.12岁。echoSHOCK方案与专家小组对休克原因的诊断和建议的干预措施的一致性为94.2%,具有统计学意义的接近完美的一致性(Cohen’s Kappa分别为-0.896,P < 0.001和0.897,P < 0.001)。相比之下,临床评估、常规检查和专家小组诊断在休克原因上的一致性为46.2%,在建议干预措施上的一致性为45.7%。echoSHOCK方案的中位可行性评分为7分(四分位间距[IQR]: 6-8),中位执行时间为7 min (IQR: 6-10)。回声休克诊断的置信度(平均值:7.14)明显高于临床检查(平均值:4.47)(Wilcoxon检验:P)。结论:回声休克方案可快速识别急诊科患者的休克病因。这有助于快速复苏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of the echoSHOCK protocol for diagnosing the cause of shock in patients arriving at the emergency department.

Objectives: Nontraumatic undifferentiated shock is difficult to manage in the emergency department due to unclear causes, lack of history, and rapid patient deterioration. Timely and appropriate resuscitation is crucial, but both inadequate and excessive resuscitation increase mortality risks. Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) offers a timely and noninvasive cardiac assessment. The echoSHOCK protocol is derived from FoCUS and improves the ability to identify the etiology of shock in patients at the emergency department. This study's primary objective was to validate the echoSHOCK protocol for diagnosing the cause of shock in patients arriving at the emergency department. This study's secondary objective was to determine the prevalence of different etiologies of shock in patients arriving at the emergency department.

Methods: Adult patients presenting to the emergency department in shock were included in the study after informed consent was obtained. The shock was defined as a systolic blood pressure of <90 mmHg or a mean arterial pressure of <65 mmHg with signs of poor tissue perfusion. Each patient underwent a detailed history, physical examination, and standard investigations. Clinicians reported a presumed etiology and management plan with a confidence level (0-10). The echoSHOCK protocol was then executed and its results were recorded with the respective confidence levels. The protocol used a phased array probe in B-mode solely and assessed left ventricle function, compressive pericardial effusion, right ventricular dilatation, interventricular septum flattening, and indicators of hypovolemia. The time taken to perform the protocol and the difficulty level were noted. An expert panel followed the patient till hospital discharge and provided the final diagnosis and intervention.

Results: The study enrolled 223 patients with a mean age of 49.12 years. The echoSHOCK protocol showed a 94.2% agreement with expert panel diagnoses on the cause of shock and proposed interventions, with a statistically significant near-perfect agreement (Cohen's Kappa -0.896, P < 0.001 and 0.897, P < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, the agreement between the clinical assessment, routine workup, and expert panel diagnoses was 46.2% on the cause of shock and 45.7% on the proposed interventions, respectively. The echoSHOCK protocol's median feasibility score was 7 (interquartile range [IQR]: 6-8), and its median performance time was 7 min (IQR: 6-10). Confidence in diagnoses was significantly higher with echoSHOCK (mean: 7.14) than with clinical examination (mean: 4.47) (Wilcoxon Test: P <0.001).

Conclusion: The echoSHOCK protocol rapidly identifies shock etiology in patients at the emergency department. This aids in rapid resuscitation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine (Turk J Emerg Med) is an International, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes clinical and experimental trials, case reports, invited reviews, case images, letters to the Editor, and interesting research conducted in all fields of Emergency Medicine. The Journal is the official scientific publication of the Emergency Medicine Association of Turkey (EMAT) and is printed four times a year, in January, April, July and October. The language of the journal is English. The Journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewed principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted. The authors are responsible for the scientific content of the material to be published. The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine reserves the right to request any research materials on which the paper is based. The Editorial Board of the Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine and the Publisher adheres to the principles of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the US National Library of Medicine, the US Office of Research Integrity, the European Association of Science Editors, and the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信